The Jesse James reference was in a Trains article in the late 70's about the RI commute service. As in the cars were so old they had bullet holes from Jesse James.

Wesley

Les Beckman

Post subject: Re: Harriman combines?

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:30 pm

Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pmPosts: 5486

wesp wrote:

The Jesse James reference was in a Trains article in the late 70's about the RI commute service. As in the cars were so old they had bullet holes from Jesse James.

Wesley

Wesley - Bullet holes from Capone I might be able to understand, but Jesse James? As for the TRAINS article, I never saw it, but those guys are from Wisconsin anyway, so that might explain their naivete! As a native Chicagoan, I guess I can bring up bullet holes, although certainly not the thing to do these days! Would be interesting to see if there is any evidence of such a thing on the good number of arch roofed (did you catch that Mark?) Rock Island commuter cars that are still in existence. My guess is nary a one! Even though the 2500's went right through Capone's "territory" on Chicago's South Side.

Bullet holes less likely from Capone, more likely from the projects along the tracks at 47th St. Those dudes will shoot at anything.

Years ago when I worked at CTA' 61st St. car shop, they were having trouble at night with boys from the project on the other side of Calumet Ave. plinking at the night crew switchmen... the orange vests made good targets. The lead switchman made a visit to the Roberts Motel south of 63rd. St. and talked to the owner, who was somehow "connected", explaining that the guys that were being shot at were all "brothers." The shooting stopped.

_________________Dennis Storzek

Randy Hees

Post subject: Re: Harriman combines?

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:34 am

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:15 pmPosts: 1326Location: Henderson Nevada

The railfan and modeling community seems to blow hot and cold on nomenclature...

On some levels we slavishly follow the railroad industry's names and model codes... then correct everyone who inserts an extra dash, or fails to insert the dash... Is the big F-M loco a Train Master, a Train-Master or a Trainmaster? (for fun (or not) ask on the SP list)

On the other extreme we use terms indiscriminately... "Harriman Car" being a really good example... I knew a few former SP employees... they were adamant that a "Harriaman" (otherwise a CS or Common Standard) was different than a "Steel" which was different than a "Sub" (suburban or commuter car, from the SF to San Jose service, also called "Interurban" cars in some company documents). Their terms identified things like the axle bearings, and the suitability for various service. Calling a "sub" a "Harriman" ignores details that made a Harriman or CS series car different, like the lack of a belt rail, The size of the windows, the way the letterboard was overlaid on the body... as noted by others its not just a arched roof... (yet, the Sub's are part of the Common Standard system... a system that included paint colors, building designs and such... )

Finally we create nomenclature... The D&RG(W) historians starting with Sloan have assigned roman numerals to various narrow gauge freight cars... Box car type 1, type 2 etc... It was a well researched and organized system but would not be recognized by the railroad...

And yet...proof is quite to the contrary, as the thread shows. "I know it when I see it" - might just as well say it's Clarabel, and leave it at that.

"Thank you rswebber for immediately recognizing the car, I described as a Harriman . Right or wrong , people know what you're talking about when the term is used ."

And...while you think you explain to people when you use the term, all you do is further muddy the waters. Which is fine - as long as you are not researching the equipment or pulling drawings and data for equipment. Then....sorry - no such animal.

That "everyone knows" does not make it right, in fact it simply shows that "everyone" is rather uneducated in passenger car construction, design, ownership and manufacturing.

Randy Hees

Post subject: Re: Harriman combines?

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:10 pm

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:15 pmPosts: 1326Location: Henderson Nevada

rswebber wrote:

And yet...proof is quite to the contrary, as the thread shows. "I know it when I see it" - might just as well say it's Clarabel, and leave it at that.

"Thank you rswebber for immediately recognizing the car, I described as a Harriman . Right or wrong , people know what you're talking about when the term is used ."

And...while you think you explain to people when you use the term, all you do is further muddy the waters. Which is fine - as long as you are not researching the equipment or pulling drawings and data for equipment. Then....sorry - no such animal.

That "everyone knows" does not make it right, in fact it simply shows that "everyone" is rather uneducated in passenger car construction, design, ownership and manufacturing.

But, as a preservationist, and a museum director, I am also an educator.... and as such I can surrender to "Everyone Knows" or I can try to be accurate (without caring about minor details like whether GP-7 should or should not have a dash)...

As a preservationist I pull drawings... regularly to allow us to understand artifacts and repair our locomotives...

As an educator, I can try to explain why the 1888 Wagner private car, rebuilt with a (faux) arch roof is not the same as the (true) "Harriman" CS sitting on the next track is a deeply different car... or I could explain that the railroad wanted to make a older car look more modern... but I shouldn't call the Wagner car a "Harriman" because it has an arched roof...

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum